Sorry, but when the economy reaches a level of technical achievement that ours has, not everyone can be employed sewing shirts or growing crops. Labor is freed up to meet new demands. Satisfying demand, and creating supply are what matter, not so much what either is. If you had asked my grandfather what would happen if agriculture continued to shrink as a component of the work force, would you also assume that food production and wealth would decrease? Back then you couldn't have even fathomed what his grandson would be employed doing, the jobs, indeed the field, didn't even exist. People are trying to cling to the past, asking 'why can't I do what I've always done?', instead of asking, 'what would my neighbor be willing to trade for today?' It's the answer to that question, which is provided as Reagan understood by America's entrepenuers. If the government scares away the entrepeneur by promising to set his wage, or seize his profits, the entrepenuer doesn't bear the blame for unemployment. Nor will more threats won't bring him back. Reagan understood his job was to provide an environment for the entrepenuer to thrive, and America would thrive as consequence. That's why he slashed the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. GWB's reductions are a joke in comparison, but still appreciated as a step toward correcting his father's error.